The bible, because the bible. Nye is trying real hard not to talk about the existence of god and Ham is capitalizing on it. Bolstering his claims by appealing directly to a god that Bill doesn't want to engage on.

Logged

The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchet

Hamm's presentation is actually more persuasive than Nye. Sadly, this Peyton Manning like effort by Nye may have actually given Hamm more credibility. Nye didn't rebut or address Hamm's assertions well at all. He miss many opportunities to really hammer Hamm's beliefs.

Hamm's presentation is actually more persuasive than Nye. Sadly, this Peyton Manning like effort by Nye may have actually given Hamm more credibility. Nye didn't rebut or address Hamm's assertions well at all. He miss many opportunities to really hammer Hamm's beliefs.

I thought Mr. Nye did very well. The goal wasn't to prove Ham wrong, it was to reach some of the audience. By not being aggressively anti-religion, he was able to sound reasonable to folks who would dismissed a Gnu-athiest without a second thought.

You aren't going to win by attacking a faith infected persons views.They wont internalize ideas that are presented in an antagonistic manner. If they aren't already questioning, then all an attack dose is entrench them further in their dogma. Instead you give them new ideas to consider. If they follow those ideas to their logical conclusions themselves, then those conclusions can chip away at their dogma from the inside.

edit: That said spending 10 minutes attacking the ark was a less than stellar move. Using it to demonstrate that the bible's ideas are testable was a good trick, but he should ave realized that Ham would be able to snap off reasonable sounding (but ultimately bollocks) refutations near the end.

« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 11:17:03 PM by RED_ApeTHEIST »

Logged

The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchet

Currently at 8% Ham, 92% Nye. Can't put much stock in self-selected polling, of course. Despite the poll being on a Christian site, the numbers could very well be driven by links to it from atheist sites.

Nye seemed to fumble his words quite a bit (repeatedly saying 4000 year old earth when he meant 4000 years since the flood, for example), had a couple of attempts at humor that came off really lame, and missed a couple of good opportunities to make important points. Ham, on the other hand, seemed more at ease, fumbled his words less, and I think his Aussie accent might have weighed slightly in his favor. But I think that overall, Nye still did quite well.

Shortly after Ham's first attempt to paint creationism as science and science as faith, Nye took on the age of the earth issue using a factual approach, presenting relevant and compelling evidence and reasoned argument, which, in addition to being a nice debunking of Ham's young-earth position, had the added effect of defusing Ham's "science is faith" claim by simply demonstrating that science is about evidence and reason, not faith, and doing so without looking defensive or giving Ham's position undue air time. I don't know if Nye actually planned it that way, but it played out nicely. As if to ice that cake, Ham's response on the age of earth topic was very weak and evasive. His response to the ice cores completely failed to address the issue. And he (Ham) frequently invoked religious arguments throughout the rest of the debate, thus debunking by demonstration his own earlier claims that creationism is science and that teaching it would not be teaching religion.

Yeah, Bill Nye knows his stuff, but is not as good of a debater than many at WWGHA seem, although typing on a website is obviously not like talking on the fly. I like towards the end when Bill reminds us how a virus could quickly wipe out our species. It reminds me of how the religious view science in comparison to god, while totally relying on science for everything. There would always be survivors of an "avian-flu-type" catastrophe - would they attribute it to God, or genetics?

So many avenues of thought. Are we hurting the possibilities of evolution in the long run by our use of science to protect the less than fit - is our human intellect not allowing "survival of the fittest" to work as well as is needed? Is there a value of the religious community, by keeping hopelessness nuts from dooming us more than they would? Even Ken mentions there not being a point for existence, without his type of thought - so scary, these religious folks, who cannot see past themselves for the possibility for existence without God, or evolution.

But we all live with ironies - myself thinking nothing matters in the long run, while everything matters in the long run. But 99% of the religious that think nothing of physical existence matters in the long run, continue to work hard, pay bills, go to the doctor, live their lives as if their physical existence matters in the long run, saying "the Lord helps those that help themselves," or continuing to pray while saying it is not right to test God. If you are going to say - "No, we are praying for God's will to be done'", then why pray? - do you think God's will wouldn't be done? Whose will would? Satan's? What really is the theist's believe in the strength of God?

It is so important to realize we are not sure of anything. I like how many times Bill Nye said, "We don't know."

This morning on the national CBS news, they did a brief story about the debate. Pundant Charlie Rose opened the story by stating "The theory of evolution is still hotly debated..."

UGH! Right into the "teach the controversy" pit trap.

Ham got to promote the debate as between "Two Science Guys". Ham lost the debate but gained propaganda and press that presented him as Nye's peer. Rather than discredit Ham, he let Ham steal some of his brand recognition.

They're the ultimate cherry-pickers; cherry-picking the bible for the good parts and ignoring the bad parts, and cherry-picking science when convenient, so long as they still get to hold on to their imaginary father figure.

So I reviewed the video a bit and there are some important things that I want to drive home to this crowd.

Debate is a format that favors politics, not science. You can "win" a debate without any actual facts of your own. If you lie so swiftly or skillfully that your opponent can't counter you "win". If you attack so viciously that you opponent is flustered you "win". You don't actually have to be "right" to win a debate.

On the other hand, science will move inexorable toward truth. Observation, hypothesis, experimenting, peer review all pull back the curtain covering the unknown.

And the greatest reveal of how this happens was the dichotomy in response to one question: "What evidence, if anything, would make you change your mind about evolution?"

Nye started rattling off a list of conditions that would falsify his vision of life on earth and origins. "We prove the universe is fixed and not expanding, that the stars that appear billions of light years away are actually very close..." Bill rattled off several ideas in just a few seconds. Because he knows how science works! He knows that any hypothesis must be falsifiable. He knows how to test them. He can imagine the experiments in his mind. SCIENCE!

So much for "Two Science Guys" Ken. You failed scientific method 101, chapter one, first paragraph. BOOM! it's over! You have no science, no theory, no hypothesis, get it out of the school and back to church.

If the IDers and creationists ever bring their circus to schools in my state, that is the FIRST question that comes out, "What evidence, if anything, would make you change your mind about evolution?" if there is no answer, then there is no science and we are done.

There is no point in debating someone who can never be swayed. And those that can never be swayed are absolutely not scientists no matter what they call themselves.

It is the poison pill against any push for ID or creation science in the classroom. Don't debate them, ask them to prove they are prepared to disavow their faith in the face of appropriate evidence. If they can't do it, they are not scientists and there is no place for their ideas in a classroom.

I wish Nye had known a little more about the Bible. E.g., "Mr. Ham, in the 11th chapter of Genesis, there's a story about a king and his people, who wanted to build a tower to Heaven. It says that God went down and looked, and in 11:6, he says, 'Nothing they conceive in their hearts will be impossible for them.' Now, I predict that you're going to find some way to say that Genesis doesn't really say that it's possible to build a tower out of mud-brick with slime for mortar that can reach Heaven, or that God actually has to come down and look before he can find out that a construction project like that is under way.

"I predict that you would never seriously attempt to take literally the things Jesus says about money, even while you take what Leviticus says about homosexuality literally--while conveniently ignoring what Leviticus says about eating shrimp wrapped in bacon. What this means is that you're not just reading the Bible as if it was a scientific treatise or car repair manual and believing what it says. You're picking and choosing which parts you want to believe and apply to support your political positions on sex and marriage, and which parts you want to ignore or 'interpret' away. You, Ken Ham, and your followers are doing the picking and choosing so that you can--as you stated in the beginning of this debate--establish your claim to 'authority' to legislate sexual behavior. That's no valid basis for a scientific model of cosmic origins."

Logged

"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."